The United States’ war on CO2 is having no actual effect

March 4, 2024

The idea that our atmosphere is heating up to dangerous levels continues. We are told that the cure to this temperature increase is the reduction or elimination of carbon emissions (CO2).

Looking at how carbon emissions changed from 2000 to 2018, we find that the United States and Europe had reduced their emissions, with the U.S. reducing by 10 percent, and Europe reducing by 16 percent, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget 2018.

As meager as that might seem to climate activists, it is enormously better than what some other nations were doing. India, for example, had increased its emissions by 155 percent, and China had trounced India, defeating it with a 208 percent increase.

Why is CO2 a crisis in the U.S. and Europe if two nations — India and China — are producing almost 15 times the carbon emissions that the U.S. and Europe are eliminating? And, China has been building one new coal-fired power plant per week. 

And more to the point, why should we in the U.S. have to purchase items that produce less CO2 and are less efficient, less desirable and more expensive? Or, why are we are unable to buy or use anymore items that we prefer because of their carbon emissions when all of that makes absolutely no difference in the effort to reduce emissions due to the monumental lack of concern of India and China?

However, in light of all of this we should consider whether CO2 is actually a real problem.

The National Geographic Society and National Geographic magazine published an article which said that “Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.” 

So, CO2 and other gases combine for a grand total of just 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere. But, let’s look deeper.

Yochanan Kushnir is a research professor at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, in the Division of Oceans and Climate Physics of Columbia University. He explains that of those other gases, carbon dioxide is only 0.04 percent — 4/100ths of a percent — of the entire atmospheric mixture. 

That figure is confirmed by other scientists, who also tell us that 95 percent of that 0.04 percent comes from natural sources, not human activity. Still others say that plant life will do better if the CO2 level was doubled.

While the effort to reduce or eliminate CO2 has affected household and other items, it also had a big effect on a large economic element in our region.

A policy of the Barack Obama administration limited power plant emissions and reduced domestic coal production. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards policy left power plants with the option of purchasing costly upgrades if they were to stay in business. This forced many plants across the country to close up shop, according to John Deskins, director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research in West Virginia University’s John Chambers College of Business and Economics.

West Virginia Coal Association President Chris Hamilton noted that these regulations forced six West Virginia plants to close, and hundreds across the country due to the financial burdens the policy caused.

He also said that West Virginia lost nearly half of its coal production, dropping from 165 million tons to less than 90 million tons.

Damian Phillips of WVNews wrote last week that coal production improved somewhat after Donald Trump became President. And Hamilton noted that During Trump’s first year in office, coal production rose in West Virginia alone.

“The state’s coal production stayed about the same in Trump’s second year,” Hamilton said, “but by the time the pandemic was in full swing, production around the country shut down, and it took more than a year for it to recover.”

Those of us living in southern West Virginia, southwest Virginia and other coal-producing areas have seen first-hand the harmful economic effects of the Obama policy. It is a policy that, according to the data presented earlier, must have been based on political ideals rather than scientific evidence.

And Phillips quoted Hamilton as saying that “Energy producers have warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Biden administration that continuing with these policies may upset the national power grid, increasing the likelihood for outages.”

Previous dire warnings about climate catastrophe include that space satellites showed a new ice age coming fast; that there was no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere; that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice; and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius’ 2014 warning that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." None of these and other predictions of catastrophe actually came to be.

Given the long list of doomsday prognostications that didn’t occur, their breathtaking contrariness to climate reality, and the minuscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should neither worry about, nor continue to combat CO2, and stop punishing the American people by mandating inferior products and unnecessary costs.

Many people see electric vehicles as our environmental salvation

“Specifically, the President will sign an Executive Order that sets an ambitious new target to make half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 zero-emissions vehicles, including battery electric, plug-in hybrid electric, or fuel cell electric vehicles,” the Whitehouse Fact Sheet tells us.

“The Executive Order also kicks off development of long-term fuel efficiency and emissions standards to save consumers money, cut pollution, boost public health, advance environmental justice, and tackle the climate crisis,” the Fact Sheet continues.

The EO outlines President Joe Biden’s plan “for the U.S. to lead in electric vehicle manufacturing, infrastructure, and innovation,” by investing in:

* A national network of electric vehicle charging stations.

* Point-of-sale consumer incentives to spur U.S. manufacturing and union jobs.

* The retooling and expansion of the full domestic manufacturing supply chain.

* The next generation of clean technologies to maintain our competitive edge.

The Fact Sheet says that “Over the last decade, we have seen a transformation in the technology costs, performance, and availability of electric vehicles. Since 2010:

* “Battery pack costs dropped by 85 percent, paving the way to sticker price parity with gasoline-powered vehicles.

* “Average vehicle range increased dramatically as charging times shortened.

* “Electric models available to U.S. consumers expanded to over 40 last year – and growing.”

How much will all of this cost, and where will the money come from? The recently passed infrastructure bill earmarks $7.5 billion for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure.

And, as CBS News reported: “A credit of up to $7,500 for an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. ... An additional $500 credit for a car with a battery pack made in the U.S. An additional $4,500 credit for cars assembled at a unionized U.S. plant. (Currently, only plants owned by GM, Ford, and Stellantis qualify [formerly, Fiat-Chrysler].)”

The provision is a tax credit — up to federal income tax owed — not a refund. And, CBS also noted that there is an income limit to the credit: You cannot make more than $500,000 for married couples and $250,000 for single buyers.

“This credit is at the point of purchase — it’s not a credit that you apply for,” Kristin Dziczek, senior vice president of research at the Center for Automotive Research, said. “It’s going to come straight off a loan or the price of the vehicle.”

So, the federal government will pay people to buy certain types of cars from certain manufacturers, and pay them more if they buy a union-made car. Why did that factor come into play? Was it because the unions opened their wallets?

And with these tax deduction incentives, won’t that cause an even larger deficit in the false concept that “it’s paid for?”

Even the best ideas have downsides. Here are some problems with electric vehicles.

Lithium is a part — the expensive part — of EV batteries, and it is getting more expensive these days. Where do we get lithium? Not here at home. Australia is the world’s biggest supplier, followed by Chile, Argentina, China, and Zimbabwe in the top five.

Lithium is finite, and it is becoming more expensive because of the demands made by automakers. 

Coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., yet that is what supplies electricity to charge electric cars. As EV use increases, so then will the demand for more electricity to charge them. One of the main reasons EVs are preferred over gas-burning vehicles is to reduce pollution. 

After the two different kinds of batteries now used in EVs are no longer useful — after about 20 years — there is not yet a market for the used batteries to recycle them and their parts. 

If you run out of juice on the road, you cannot get a jump start to get back on the road. If a problem with your electric motor develops, you cannot just take it down the street to the shop and find someone who can fix it. Dealers will be the only source of repair.

Speaking of “re-fueling” an EV, how long does that take? According to avtowow.com, “Charging most EVs using 220 volts will give you a full charge in as little as 3-4 hours to anywhere between 10-12 hours (depending on the battery size).”

And what about road-trips? “Charging electric vehicles using 440-volt systems during road trips adds a considerable amount of time to the trip. For example, a trip from Washington, DC to Little Rock, Arkansas could take 17 hours in a regular car,” avtowow.com says. Charging stops will add hours to the trip. And charging on a regular home’s 110-volt power supply could take up to 45 hours.

EVs may well be a sensible option for future transportation. But the industry is not yet up to speed, and won’t be for years. Trying to rush this “solution” into reality is foolish, and will likely make things worse, at least for a while. Which, of course, is usually not a consideration when liberals think they have a problem solved.

Better to let things develop at their own pace. The industry is working toward that end. It will take longer, but the result will be better. And, that will cost taxpayers less money.